-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:01:17PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >>If we should use it, it would be helpful if we didn't have to keep track >>of where it was (i.e., apply it to released portage as a patch). > > E'yep. :) > > Until 2.0.51.16 is stabled, pushing patches into the tree isn't an option > though. Pushing out a 2.0.51-r16 isn't > really viable. > > You actually just touched on the reason why portage is jumping from .51-rN to > .51.N; so we can use the -rN version > component to push out patches while releases are being put through the > testing process...
No! Don't tell me portage is finally using a sane numbering scheme! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCGrIbXVaO67S1rtsRAhzFAKCRDD6lhIUBrx3BpWqqcSJtbKA3lgCdHXvi sPXWa+aWCMGZvy24rJ4Ejlk= =1NcF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
